The City of Saint Louis has an agency, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), which manages more than 10,000 of these vacant and abandoned properties. The LRA has an enormous responsibility. Its actions, past and present, can play a major role in determining the future of this city. In a 2011 Show-Me Institute Policy Study called “Standstill: How City Agencies Have Hindered Development In Saint Louis While Waiting For Large-Scale Miracles,” then-policy analyst Audrey Spalding examined the actions and decisions the LRA makes that heavily affect the city of Saint Louis. The study found that the LRA was not fulfilling the responsibilities of the organization as created and defined in Missouri statute.

The LRA has the ability to increase private investment in Saint Louis neighborhoods, which can help create a better Saint Louis. But it cannot do that if it does not sell properties.

By building on the work presented in “Standstill,” this case study will provide insight into how the LRA has changed over the last couple of years and whether it has started to achieve the original goals tasked to it more than 40 years ago.

Read the case study:

See also the Show-Me Institute’s previous research on land banks:

• Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles? — April 19, 2011
• Land Banking: An Old Idea With A Poor Track Record — March 26, 2012
• Kansas City Land Bank Proposal: Learning From Failures Of The Saint Louis Land Bank— March 05, 2012
• Land Banking Is No Miracle — February 29, 2012
• Land Bank Recommendations — February 28, 2012
• Legislators Should Seriously Consider the Failings of the Saint Louis Land Bank before Creating a Kansas City Land Bank — February 08, 2012
• What a Difference a Year Makes: Saint Louis City’s Land Bank, the LRA — October 03, 2011
• Why Is There So Much Vacant Land in Saint Louis? — February 22, 2011
• Paper Questions City Landholding Policy — February 21, 2011

The post Promoting Private Land Ownership In Saint Louis: A Data Update On The Land Reutilization Authority appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The next question is, why have the number of subsections in Chapter 143 of Title X increased? Several possible answers apply. For one thing, no law is ever written perfectly the first time. So, new subsections refine things, such as loopholes that were not evident when the law was initially written and to redefine what income is subject to taxation. Additionally, the state assembly sees opportunities to use tax laws that seek to stimulate economic development by changing the amount of income subject to the state income tax. By implementing such changes, the carrot-and-stick approach aims to modify people’s behavior so that the Missouri economy will grow faster.

Third, if we started from scratch, would we implement the same set of subsections? The calls for tax reform are based on the notion that tax code becomes unnecessarily complicated over time. The view is that the number of laws that adjust taxable income changes over time complicate things by altering the set of deductions, exclusions, and credits that apply to taxpayers.4 Each filer must keep up in order to comply. Each new subsection adds a layer of new questions that taxpayers confront when filing their taxes. Do I qualify for the new tax credit? Does the new deduction apply to me? On the other hand, the filer risks either not complying or paying too much in taxes if he ignores new tax laws.

We have moved systematically through three questions. At the end, there is a case to be made for tax reform, if nothing else, to reduce the complexity and save people time. Tax reform, however, is not limited to dealing with the complexity issue. Indeed, it is also a good time to ask, what kind of taxes do the least harm to Missourians?

Read the essay: .

The post What Makes a Good Tax Structure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read more about this in Haleigh’s op-ed.

The post Free Rides In The Zoo Museum Taxing District? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I was a little girl growing up in rural Southern Illinois, my parents often piled my sister and me into the car, packed a cooler full of our favorite foods, and headed across the bridge toward Saint Louis. Our destination: Forest Park. We spent our morning running around the park, ate our picnic lunch, and then strolled through the Saint Louis Zoo. My parents did this quite often, and for good reason: it did not cost them anything more than the gas in the car and food in the cooler.

I did not realize it at the time, but we were “free riders,” meaning we benefitted from public goods without paying for them. Free riders place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. To reduce this burden, Saint Louisans need to consider long-term funding options to support the institutions like the zoo within Forest Park.

In 1972, Saint Louis City and County passed a property tax to fund the operation of the area’s cultural institutions. The Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District (ZMD) was created and initially funded the Saint Louis Zoo, Art Museum, and Science Center. Later, voters included the Missouri Botanical Garden and the Missouri History Museum in the taxing district. Today, a variety of sources fund the institutions, with the ZMD property tax as the primary source.

At the time Saint Louis City and County levied the tax, the residential taxpayers accounted for 62 percent of the population of the greater Saint Louis area. The majority of the typical ZMD customers were contributing to its funding. Conversely, in 2010, Saint Louis City and County represented only 47 percent of the metro area. Therefore, less than half of the expected patrons were funding the District.

The Zoo Museum District originally was established to help local institutions and residents enrich the area and draw individuals from around the country to experience the cultural wealth located in Saint Louis. The initiative did just that, but many years have passed. Why are the minority of typical patrons paying for the whole? It is time to re-examine the Zoo Museum Taxing District.

Providing neighboring counties in both Missouri and Illinois with the option to join the Zoo Museum Taxing District is a good place to start. If the counties choose not to participate, it may be worth considering admission fees.

The bottom line is that Saint Louis City and County need to strongly consider a more efficient funding strategy for these institutions. Many families like mine make the short trip into Saint Louis to make priceless memories. However, we should not expect Saint Louis City and County taxpayers to bear the entire cost of paying for those memories.

Haleigh Albers is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Free Rides In The Zoo Museum District? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Given the building’s current state, it is exciting that the LRA has found a positive future for the property. The owners of CBI donated the property to the LRA with the understanding that once the current environmental clean-up is complete, the land will be given to the Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club.

The LRA is not responsible for the site’s clean-up, but it is responsible for what happens to the property after that. While the president of the Boys and Girls Club, Flint Fowler, said he looks forward to the Club’s expansion, some locals are wary of the property’s future. Loletta Zasaretii, a resident of the neighborhood, said she would rather see jobs created on the property instead of  “just another ball field.” Although many share Zasaretti’s desire for more jobs in North Saint Louis, the LRA is making the right decision because it is not holding onto the property.

The LRA may not be solving all of the neighborhood’s problems by handing the property over to the Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club, a non-profit, tax–exempt organization. But it is definitely moving in the right direction toward improving Saint Louis. Along with making the property more attractive and safer, the Boys and Girls Club — rather than the city — would be responsible for the land’s upkeep. Most importantly, the LRA deserves credit for getting the property off the city’s balance sheet and back into private ownership and productive use. Why can’t the LRA do this same thing with the thousands of other properties it owns?

The post More Like This. . .Please? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.